Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airlines awards and accolades

Emirates Airlines awards and accolades

These articles fail WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. All of these articles are sourced only to the airline's PR department. A mention of 1 or 2 of the awards in the main airline article is sufficient; we don't need sprawling lists of airline-related PR on WP. Russavia (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail all of the above:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. --Huaiwei (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Singapore Airlines awards and accolades article has been nominated for AfD by the same user before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, and the result was keep. The reasons to keep has remained the same, and applies also to each of the articles nominated above.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meaningless cruft; should be replaced with summaries and links to the respective airlines' own listings of their awards. Jpatokal (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the major keep arguments used in the Afd for the Singapore list last year was that the main article was too long to keep it so a separate article is required. You are correct that the right response to horrible cruft is the delete it, not to create a separate article for it. --Russavia (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Emirates Airlines. There is no way this should be its own article.Rracecarr (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jpatokal Tavix (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a good topic for a stand alone article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A related article Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, is not a standalone article. It is an extension from this statement in the main Singapore Airlines article: "Singapore Airlines have received numerous awards and accolades for the standard of service it provides. It claims to be "The World's Most Awarded Airline".".--Huaiwei (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - I feel that the Emirates Awards and Accolades article has the potential to be a concise list which can be of use. I feel that the feeling of PR is overblown and is more in the mindset of individuals heavily involved in the editing of articles related to airlines, rather than from a neutral person who just happens to steps upon the Emirates article and wants to find out more. Despite this, the standard of the article should be upgrade to that of Singapore Airlines' - if that is not done in 30 days then Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the Emirates article is up to the 'standard' of the Singapore Airlines, it shouldn't be kept, but removed even quicker, due to the Singapore Airlines article being cruftier, and still all sourced to only a single reference; the Singapore Airlines PR department. Also, don't remove the Afd template from the Singapore Airlines article, as that article is also up for deletion as part of this Afd. --Russavia (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply So you think that the article citation (Singapore Airlines Public Affairs) is incorrect? Maybe instead of AfD-ing, you could take some time to improve the citation to your standard perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This breakdown of awards is far, far, far from notable. Heck, the Skytrax article only lists the Best Airline award. If information about the "Best Cargo airline to Australia" win is notable at all (ha!) it would belong in an article about that award, not here. Bm gub (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please forgive my ignorance, but I understood that nominators and supporters of deleting articles were advised to provide evidence of their attempts to find sources and evidence of notability before proposing articles for deletion. Are Russavia, et al really putting forward the proposition that there are no sources for either the facts or the notability of Emirate's awards? Alice^✉ 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This Afd was re-listed so that more comments could be obtained. Unfortunately due to the confusing templates that have been placed at three separate airline articles, editors that might be tempted to comment are being referred to an old Decision that has already been made. I also deprecate the confusions between three separate articles - why do you think no-one has commentated on the Malaysian Airlines article? It's because editors there think the template is a typogrpahicla error and relates solely to Emirates. This confusion is a clear abuse of process and this allegedly triple Afd should be terminated at once and properly re-notified according to the guidelines. Alice^✉ 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)